Honeymooners movie

[Shane Martin]

Honeymooners Trailer

Ugh is the word

[George Bellefontaine]

Not for me. UGH UGH.

Jackie Gleason ... RIP.

[David Meek]

Please...

[highaflat]

An Open Letter To Cedric The Entertainer

Dear Ced,

I guess you could say I am a fan... Well, after you read this, you may think it's more hate mail than fan mail. While it may seem that way, it is not. I am just someone who is standing by in absolute agony over what your forthcoming movie might do to my career.

I loved you in both Barbershop films. In fact, I had not viewed either film until last night, when I was angry enough to write this letter. I decided that before I wrote this, and came off as an unintelligent dilletante, it might be best to have a better barometer with which to judge your talents as an actor.

Yes, you are a funny man. You are warm, generous and a character actor of size. Being in the same boat, I have deep admiration and respect for anyone who can make it in this business with that working against them. You have made it work for you, and that's a beautiful thing. Sure, you've made some ... interesting.... choices as an actor, but I understand the idea that money is money and work is work. Nonetheless, you still have managed to make some very entertaining and often funny films and television appearances.

Then, someone came to you.. or perhaps you approached them -(whomsoever THEM might be) - with an idea to do a contemporary, urban, funky-fresh remake of THE HONEYMOONERS, The iconic 50's television show that placed Jackie Gleason at the top of the pantheon of comedic greats.

Did you ever, for one moment, think : " Boy, it might not be a good idea to monkey around with something that has stood the test of time. I don't know if I should urbanize a show that holds so many memories for audiences young and old and is irrevocably connected with it's 50's setting and tone." Did you ever say or think that? Or did the producers wave a $$$$$$$ sign in front of your eyes and you decided to leap at the check? I'd bet my meager paycheck that it was the latter of the choices.

Ok Ced, Now you are asking: "Why does this guy care?"

I have an abiding respect for Jackie and the entire Honeymooners legacy. I have made my career impersonating Jackie in many of his different characterizations - From Ralph Kramden to Sheriff Buford T. Justice. I know what you may be thinking: " Oh, this is sour grapes because this man would have rather done the role." Sure. I would have loved to play Ralph on screen. I would have been honored to bring the Gleason legacy to a new, young audience. However, I am not YOU. I am not a name, I have no Q rating or box office record. Be that as it may, I would certainly have done it with a regard for the legacy of the show and Mr. Gleason - Something that you and the scriptwriters have patently ignored.

I viewed the trailer for this forthcoming epic and was physically ill. It's apparent to anyone who has ever been a fan of the Honeymooners, that you have taken the premise of a poor Brooklyn bus driver, his wife, his sewer worker best friend and his wife and placed them into a contemporary millieu that bears little or no resemblence or true respect for what Mr. Gleason created. Now it's peppered with language and references to Norton seeing Alice naked and thinking about it for the sake of a cheap laugh. You took the names and the premise... but you forgot about the heart of what the original show was built upon.

So, now you are probably thinking: "This Honky is making it a race issue." No. I am not. Ralph Kramden is everyman. He can be Black, White, Yellow or Green. But he is real, honest, foolish and most of all, he is a man for whom the American Dream of prosperity and happiness eludes. His happiness lies in an abiding love for the woman he married. Not in a series of cheap sex jokes and sight gags. Gleason never stooped to that - Why did you?

I honestly believe that you could have been an IDEAL Ralph Kramden - Given material that would have at least respected and valued the original. Had you at least made a vague STAB at it, you would have had the admiration and respect of fans everywhere. Sure, updating the timeframe to present day makes sense. After all, aren't African Americans a valid example of today's urban landscape? Why wouldn't African-Americans have the same trials and tribulations as a struggling couple in a 2 room coldwater flat in Bensonhurst in the 50's? Simplicity and pure situation comedy was what made the original work. However, by "ghettoizing" the piece and attempting to make an older, unfamiliar show appealing to the young urban audience, you and your producers managed to create "Two Guys Named Ralph and Ed go for a Haircut at the Barbershop." I'm almost surprised that you didn't change your name to "Blackie Gleason" for this film. The film is already pandering to it's intended audience.. why not sink lower?

Cedric, race really isn't the issue, although some audience members and critics will certainly try to make it one. The issue here is maintaining a respect for characters that have stood the test of time. Judging strictly from the trailer - You have failed.

I am thrilled that Joyce Randolph, the original Trixie Norton, and the last surviving cast member of the four stars chose to appear in the movie in a brief cameo. That may be the only way you will get anyone to see this film that has any regard for the original. Otherwise, the young, urban audience that this film is targeted and marketed for, will have no desire, no clue what the original TV series was about. They will continue in blissful ignorance, and perhaps not even attempt to watch an original episode to see how superior it is to the film they were just subjected to. They are just gonna be happy that they got a few crude jokes from their ol' pal Cedric the Entertainer. Take their $8.50 and out the door.

Will I see the film? Inevitably, yes. I will sit in a darkened theatre with the other fools who paid their hard-earned cash. I may be the only person in the theatre mumbling under my breath in fury simply because I know the difference. I know when I am being fed manure and being told it's chicken salad.

This film will be condemned to DVD hell within 2 months of release. Frankly, and I don't want to bear ill will, but I hope it does. However, you will have moved on to other projects, your SAG check will have long since cleared the bank, and the only time you will ever have to think about this film is when your residuals from DVD and Cable sales come in.

Where does that leave us? Those who wanted a definitive film version that respected and at very least attempted to recreate the beautiful simplicity of the original series?

In the dark.

I hope that you will pick your projects more wisely in the future.

Archie Bunker just seems to be SCREAMING for your touch. Oddly enough, ALL IN THE FAMILY might be the one you COULD pull off and not offend anyone.

[David Meek]

Mike, that is quite a "first post". 8O

I too am old enough (well, barely) to remember The Honeymooners and agree with you that the spirit of the original has been discarded in the remake. In my non-insider opinion it's just another piece of evidence that much of the creativity in Hollywood has been replaced by efforts to re-hash older, successful ideas in a manner that panders to the lowest-common social denominator - the immature looking for sexual innuendo amid the general crudity.

I'm not putting on a hypocritical hat here - at least I don't think I am. I like the Blue Collar Comedy Tour as much as anyone and laugh until my sides hurt at representations of characters that are far too close to real family members for comfort. But that is a fresh, stand-on-its-own-merits presentation. The Honeymooners remake is not and that, as you so clearly pointed out, is the real crux of the matter.

Welcome to The Guide, BTW. :welcome:

[George Bellefontaine]

Yeah, quite a first post, Mike. Says it all for me, too.